TexasCHLforum.com

clarionite wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:05 pm

dlh wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:48 pm After you shoot a few folks you just don't flee the scene and run home to another state.
Looks bad and allows a prosecutor down the road to make the usual comment oh flight is evidence of guilt.
Leaving the scene and fleeing to another state---that was not a wise decision in my opinion. Just my opinion.
Regarding the shooting--we can all agree he will be responsible for every bullet fired from his rifle.
A jury just might find him not guilty of the murder charges--we will wait and see.
Covid has crippled trial courts across the nation and they need to get cranking again as soon as possible
so justice can be dispensed.

He attempted to surrender to police at the scene. That's on video too. And his fleeing was a whole 15 miles to his home.

I agree. Claiming he "fled" the scene is at best dishonesty. He attempted to surrender to police. Which is a damn sight more than any of these leftist terrorists do when they assault people.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:43 pm I'm not sure if we can post in this thread, but here are my thoughts.

The only thing the Kenosha shooter did "wrong", IMHO, was being there in the first place. I have not heard that he, or his family, owned the property he was trying to defend, or that he was asked by the owner of that property to help them defend it. Others will disagree, but to me, that is crossing a line into a function that is best left to government.

And when the government won't do the main goal of being formed what do you do?

jason812 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:10 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:43 pm I'm not sure if we can post in this thread, but here are my thoughts.

The only thing the Kenosha shooter did "wrong", IMHO, was being there in the first place. I have not heard that he, or his family, owned the property he was trying to defend, or that he was asked by the owner of that property to help them defend it. Others will disagree, but to me, that is crossing a line into a function that is best left to government.

And when the government won't do the main goal of being formed what do you do?

Simple answer - You do it yourself. But that doesn't mean that you go out of your way to protect the property of other people. Again - if the owner of that property had asked Kyle to defend his stuff, that changes things, IMHO.

You also have an obligation to overthrow that system of government and replace it with one that will secure your rights and freedoms. I agree with Thomas Locke and also with the writers of the declaration of independence on that point.

jason812 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:10 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:43 pm I'm not sure if we can post in this thread, but here are my thoughts.

The only thing the Kenosha shooter did "wrong", IMHO, was being there in the first place. I have not heard that he, or his family, owned the property he was trying to defend, or that he was asked by the owner of that property to help them defend it. Others will disagree, but to me, that is crossing a line into a function that is best left to government.

And when the government won't do the main goal of being formed what do you do?

Many that don't pay insurance are claiming you should just let insurance handle it."It's only property"
Those people have never built a business and have no clue that it's not just property, it's your livelihood.
They think "insurance" is some faceless thing that is a bottomless pit of money. Not realizing that rates are going
to increase and policies will be cancelled. So these same people will be screaming there are no businesses in their
neighborhoods, and that's racist.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:43 pmThat said, the shooter here likely could not legally carry a handgun, so I can't fault him on this point.

His other mistake was that he could not legally carry a rifle either. In Wisconsin, it is illegal for a minor to be in possession of any loaded weapon.

clarionite wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:19 pm

jason812 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:10 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:43 pm I'm not sure if we can post in this thread, but here are my thoughts.

The only thing the Kenosha shooter did "wrong", IMHO, was being there in the first place. I have not heard that he, or his family, owned the property he was trying to defend, or that he was asked by the owner of that property to help them defend it. Others will disagree, but to me, that is crossing a line into a function that is best left to government.

And when the government won't do the main goal of being formed what do you do?

Many that don't pay insurance are claiming you should just let insurance handle it."It's only property"
Those people have never built a business and have no clue that it's not just property, it's your livelihood.
They think "insurance" is some faceless thing that is a bottomless pit of money. Not realizing that rates are going
to increase and policies will be cancelled. So these same people will be screaming there are no businesses in their
neighborhoods, and that's racist.

Many, if not most, insurance policies have a clause exempting them from coverage under circumstances of riot. This problem has already affected many of the people who have experienced total loss of their businesses.

Keep in mind that the other side started shooting first.
June 14, 2017
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... eball-game

srothstein wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:21 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:43 pmThat said, the shooter here likely could not legally carry a handgun, so I can't fault him on this point.

His other mistake was that he could not legally carry a rifle either. In Wisconsin, it is illegal for a minor to be in possession of any loaded weapon.

This has been my biggest concern since we found out who he was.

C-dub wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:08 pm

srothstein wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:21 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:43 pmThat said, the shooter here likely could not legally carry a handgun, so I can't fault him on this point.

His other mistake was that he could not legally carry a rifle either. In Wisconsin, it is illegal for a minor to be in possession of any loaded weapon.

This has been my biggest concern since we found out who he was.

Found this in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

...
Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.
...
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cr ... 444231001/

dlh wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:48 pm After you shoot a few folks you just don't flee the scene and run home to another state.
Looks bad and allows a prosecutor down the road to make the usual comment oh flight is evidence of guilt.
Leaving the scene and fleeing to another state---that was not a wise decision in my opinion. Just my opinion.
Regarding the shooting--we can all agree he will be responsible for every bullet fired from his rifle.
A jury just might find him not guilty of the murder charges--we will wait and see.
Covid has crippled trial courts across the nation and they need to get cranking again as soon as possible
so justice can be dispensed.

There are videos of him trying to stop the police and surrender. They did not stop.

From what I read he was 17 years old parading around with a rifle when he should have been at home. He had no business being there with a rifle trying to act like an adult. This is the real world not a video game and he made a bad decision that may change his life.

I'm not even going to debate if it was self defense or not, if you go looking for trouble you'll probably find it. It what I read was incorrect and he was 18 or older I'll adjust my viewpoint. If not he should have been at home in Illinois.

mrvmax wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:19 pm From what I read he was 17 years old parading around with a rifle when he should have been at home. He had no business being there with a rifle trying to act like an adult. This is the real world not a video game and he made a bad decision that may change his life.

I'm not even going to debate if it was self defense or not, if you go looking for trouble you'll probably find it. It what I read was incorrect and he was 18 or older I'll adjust my viewpoint. If not he should have been at home in Illinois.

Legal arguments aside, I agree with this. No matter what the courts decide the age old saying applies, just because you can, doesnt mean you should.

Plain and simple, he put himself in this situation. It took three to tango here, 2 people lost their lives and a 3rd is in limbo, just senseless.

eyedoc wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:00 pm

dlh wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:48 pm After you shoot a few folks you just don't flee the scene and run home to another state.
Looks bad and allows a prosecutor down the road to make the usual comment oh flight is evidence of guilt.
Leaving the scene and fleeing to another state---that was not a wise decision in my opinion. Just my opinion.
Regarding the shooting--we can all agree he will be responsible for every bullet fired from his rifle.
A jury just might find him not guilty of the murder charges--we will wait and see.
Covid has crippled trial courts across the nation and they need to get cranking again as soon as possible
so justice can be dispensed.

There are videos of him trying to stop the police and surrender. They did not stop.

He could have driven himself to the police station and asked to see a detective. Maybe they would want to know his name, address, and telephone number? How did he get home? Didn't he have a cell phone? He could have called the police station if he did not have a car.
This is a case of a poorly trained 17 year-old quickly getting in over his head.
The National Guard trains for events like this--I doubt he did.
I heard he is not agreeing to extradition at this time so the judge reset his case to a date in September.
I also heard that Lin Wood was retained to represent him---he is the bulldog lawyer who represented Nick Sandmann.

dlh wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:31 pm

eyedoc wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:00 pm

dlh wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:48 pm After you shoot a few folks you just don't flee the scene and run home to another state.
Looks bad and allows a prosecutor down the road to make the usual comment oh flight is evidence of guilt.
Leaving the scene and fleeing to another state---that was not a wise decision in my opinion. Just my opinion.
Regarding the shooting--we can all agree he will be responsible for every bullet fired from his rifle.
A jury just might find him not guilty of the murder charges--we will wait and see.
Covid has crippled trial courts across the nation and they need to get cranking again as soon as possible
so justice can be dispensed.

There are videos of him trying to stop the police and surrender. They did not stop.

He could have driven himself to the police station and asked to see a detective. Maybe they would want to know his name, address, and telephone number? I heard he is not agreeing to extradition at this time so the judge reset his case to a date in September.
I also heard that Lin Wood was retained to represent him---he is the bulldog lawyer who represented Nick Sandmann.

It was safer to go home and surrender in a less politically charged area.

That kid definitely needs to be in the military. Good situational awareness and control.

Lin Wood offered to represent him for free. GOA is also providing support for him. I will pitch in too. If he is not agreeing to extradition, it is probably on the advice of his council.

ScottDLS wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:53 pm

C-dub wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:08 pm

srothstein wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:21 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:43 pmThat said, the shooter here likely could not legally carry a handgun, so I can't fault him on this point.

His other mistake was that he could not legally carry a rifle either. In Wisconsin, it is illegal for a minor to be in possession of any loaded weapon.

This has been my biggest concern since we found out who he was.

Found this in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

...
Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.
...
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cr ... 444231001/

Wisconsin 948.60 is their regulation against possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Article (3)(c) states "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

In other words, The regulation against possession of a dangerous weapon under 18 has an exception when you have a rifle or shotgun. You must not be in violation of 941.28 and you can't be out of compliance with 29.304 or 29.593.

941.28 is a regulation on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Kyles rifle was not a short-barreled rifle, so he was not in violation of 941.28.

29.304 pertains to regulations of firearms for individuals under 16 years of age. Kyle is 17, so 29.304 doesn't even apply to him.

Section 29.593 requires anyone born 1973 or later to essentially attend a hunter safety course to go hunting (with any weapon bow, rifle, etc). Kyle was not hunting, so he was in compliance.

So per Wisconsin state law, a person under 18 cannot posses a dangerous weapon, unless that weapon is a rifle or shotgun! If a person posses a rifle or shotgun and is under the age of 18, and over the age of 16, and they are not hunting, section 948.60 does not apply to them per the letter of Wisconsin law! There us no regulation against them having the rifle or shotgun.

Further, Wisconsin's open carry originates from their Constitution and allows anyone firearm that can be legally carried, to be openly carried by anyone legally able to do so. Thus, since Kyle's rifle was a firearm that could be legally owned, and since there was no law against Kyle possessing that rifle, he could legally open carry it.